Cartographic Fonts

burwelbo

Posted 21 March 2011 - 12:09 AM

burwelbo

Master Contributor

Validated Member

118 posts

Interests:Hockey, Hiking, Travel

Canada

Hello

I am putting together a map that is intended to be a poster (36 x 42). The scale is 250,000. I have been struggling with finding fonts I like and was just wondering if anyone had some good font suggestions for this size map. What would be nice is some recommendations on font sizes also. What are good fonts for rivers, lakes, roads and place names with associated sizes? I have looked at TypeBrewer but most of those fonts are not included in Windows.

...although that doesn't mean that I recommend you to purchase the Cisalpin font.

Personally, I have yet to find a typeface that I'm 100% pleased with. What I look for is:

sans serif or grotesque typefaces

open counters

a two story a in italics

a wide range of weights to facilitate a text hierarchy (thin to heavy)

not to wide (a condensed or semi-condensed makes things easier in cramped areas)

For me it is important that each character is distinct to enhance legibilty in small sizes. For example, an italic single story "a" is easy to mix up with the "o". Recall that map labels are not known words so you get the letter from the context.

Her is a list of font families that I would recommend:

Frutiger

Myriad Pro

Gill Sans

Futura

Optima

Avoid Helvetica because it comes in many versions which can lead to unpredictable results (Helvetica neue is a safer alternative).

Gretchen Peterson

Posted 23 March 2011 - 12:04 PM

Gretchen Peterson

Master Contributor

Validated Member

239 posts

United States

I like Delicious Italics for water features. It's free from exljbris here. For text size at a viewing distance of about 2 meters I would say point size can range from 24pt to 36pt while a closer viewing distance of 1 meters text is readable at 18 to 24 point (I've tested these in the past). For 2 meter viewing distance, titles in a sans-serif should be 72-100pt, at a distance of 1 meter titles can be 48-60 pt. Hope that helps.

Posted 23 March 2011 - 12:11 PM

I like Delicious Italics for water features. It's free from exljbris here. For text size at a viewing distance of about 2 meters I would say point size can range from 24pt to 36pt while a closer viewing distance of 1 meters text is readable at 18 to 24 point (I've tested these in the past). For 2 meter viewing distance, titles in a sans-serif should be 72-100pt, at a distance of 1 meter titles can be 48-60 pt. Hope that helps.

Gretchen Peterson

Posted 23 March 2011 - 12:14 PM

Gretchen Peterson

Master Contributor

Validated Member

239 posts

United States

I like Delicious Italics for water features. It's free from exljbris here. For text size at a viewing distance of about 2 meters I would say point size can range from 24pt to 36pt while a closer viewing distance of 1 meters text is readable at 18 to 24 point (I've tested these in the past). For 2 meter viewing distance, titles in a sans-serif should be 72-100pt, at a distance of 1 meter titles can be 48-60 pt. Hope that helps.

Dennis McClendon

Posted 25 March 2011 - 12:53 PM

I have looked at TypeBrewer but most of those fonts are not included in Windows.

All of them, of course, can be purchased for Windows.

We have no way of knowing what fonts are included with your particular installation of Windows, so it's hard to give recommendations. I think Myriad (sans-serif) and Minion (serif) are now pretty easy to come by, and those are good well-designed options for clear readable typefaces.

burwelbo

Posted 27 March 2011 - 09:17 AM

burwelbo

Master Contributor

Validated Member

118 posts

Interests:Hockey, Hiking, Travel

Canada

This is all good information. I had known that much about fonts. I have a couple of other questions.

1. What size fonts would you use for natural features such as lakes, rivers and creeks? I know it depends on the font. This is for a printed poster. I have been using 6 or 7 for creeks and and maybe 8 for lakes and rivers. When I zoom in to 100% in ArcMAp it looks good but I am concerned how it will look printed off.
2. I have read that you should use a San Serif font for natural features and a Serif font for labels, places, etc.. How many fonts should you have in a map? Should one usually be Serif and the other San Serif?

Hans van der Maarel

Posted 28 March 2011 - 12:38 AM

Hans van der Maarel

CartoTalk Editor-in-Chief

Admin

4,166 posts

Gender:Male

Location:The Netherlands

Interests:Cartography, GIS, history, popular science, music.

Netherlands

1. What size fonts would you use for natural features such as lakes, rivers and creeks? I know it depends on the font. This is for a printed poster. I have been using 6 or 7 for creeks and and maybe 8 for lakes and rivers. When I zoom in to 100% in ArcMAp it looks good but I am concerned how it will look printed off.

Also depends on the size of the feature and complexness of the map at that particular location. I tend to not use any text smaller than 5 pt since that's on the edge of readability. 6 or 7 pt would be a good default size, and then make them larger if possible, or smaller if necessary.

2. I have read that you should use a San Serif font for natural features and a Serif font for labels, places, etc.. How many fonts should you have in a map? Should one usually be Serif and the other San Serif?

I actually use it the other way around, sans serif for manmade features and serif for natural. One or two fonts per map is ideal, but again it depends on the actual map.

Charles Syrett

Posted 28 March 2011 - 09:51 AM

Charles Syrett

Ultimate Contributor

Validated Member

540 posts

Canada

I basically agree with Hans, and it's certainly true that serifs are more often used for natural features than for man-made. However, many maps also use sans serif only, for all features. To do this well, you have to make sure that the distinction is still evident. Usually, in this case, natural features are italicized. It's also best to stay within one font family that has many variations, such as Myriad or Univers.

Size also depends on the size of the feature. Suppose, for example, that a quarter of your map was covered by one lake. The label for such a feature would have to break out of whatever size rules you're using so that the name "matches" the feature size.

The best way to get a feel for this is just to look at a lot of maps and atlases, especially at the size, scale, and detail level that you will have on your own map.